Impossible Turn

[FastEddieB]

First, re: "The Impossible Turn"...

What may be physically possible under ideal situations and what pilots can actually pull off in an unexpected emergency seem to be two very different things.

In the 3 or 4 second "deer in the headlights" delay that most pilots will experience, a small plane, nose up after takeoff, will decelerate rapidly. The airspeed could easily plummet from 60k to 45k in a typical Light Sport by the time the pilot "wakes up" and begins to act.

If at that point the "act" is to turn back towards the airport, accident statistics tell us that turn is fraught with danger. Many pilots die in the attempt, most often from stalling and spinning at some point in the turn. It has happened with enough regularity that the turn was given it's name*.

That is NOT to say that some aircraft piloted by some pilots in some situations and with adequate training might not be capable of turning back and landing successfully. Some Light Sports may even be at pattern altitude before the runway end - from that position a turn back to a close in downwind and tight pattern might easily be within many pilot's skill sets.

But, in general, I think it's wise to train pilots NOT to turn back - it's a strong instinct that must be trained out of a pilot. Hopefully most of my students retained lowering the nose as a first reaction to a power loss in the climb - and then to look around in their current field of view for the best, or at least the "least bad" landing area, involving no turn of more than 45° initially. Only then, and only with copious altitude to spare, should any maneuvering back towards the airport even be considered.

Obligatory BRS/CAPS post to follow...

*Of course, to be fair, we are far more likely to read about and take note of the unsuccessful attempts - the successful ones do not make it into to accident statistics in the first place.

[CTLSi]

......

[dstclair]

Guess there are some who don't get it.. If there is a good landing spot, then land the airplane. I have a BRS and would use it for a structural failure, hostile terrain, or night flight engine failure where no visible landing spot is available. I would not total an airframe using the BRS when there is an available spot to land. Any pilot who cannot make a dead stick landing in an open field should seek additional training. Pulling the "O MY GOD" handle just because you loose an engine is absurd. Sounds like the advise of a commercial "BUS DRIVER".

The key to this is what constitutes an available landing spot. Last year a CT put down in the Dallas area on a soccer field, hit a gofer hole and rolled a couple times. I would've thought a maintained soccer pitch would be an ideal place to land. A freshly plowed field presents problems as well.

My suggestion is to pick the course of action that provides the lowest injury risk to the people in the plane and on the ground. Damage to the airframe is of zero consideration.

[MrMorden]

I will use all tools available to me to the best of my ability. I'd rather be a live bus driver than a dead he-man "real" pilot.

After all, how many people see a pilot killed trying to shoehorn an airplane into a tiny field with no other options and say: "Wow, he was a great pilot because he continued to try flying the airplane against massive odds. He may be dead, but at least he wasn't a bus driver!"

[MrMorden]

My suggestion is to pick the course of action that provides the lowest injury risk to the people in the plane and on the ground. Damage to the airframe is of zero consideration.

This, exactly.

[3Dreaming]

Once again the same set of guys miss the point on the chute. This is not a new debate...it's about clinging to old ideas and having a 'macho' attitude. One of the dangerous behaviors in flying.

The chute should be used in the following scenarios:

1. engine out on takeoff in conjunction with attempting to land straight out
2. engine out in all circumstances where possible landing spots are not absolutely clearly visible, and without hazard to cars or others on the ground
3. at night when landing locations cannot be seen
4. over water
5. midairs
6. over mountain or uneven terrain, or in terrain where room does not exist to make a landing.

It is optional to use it under all emergencys like an engine fire, or an engine out regardless of availability of a road or flat field.

No macho attitude here. If I need to use it you can rest assured I will pull the handle. I agree that I would consider the chute with all the situations you posted, except #1. Either you pull the chute, or you land straight out. You can't do both in conjunction with the other.

[MrMorden]

Once again the same set of guys miss the point on the chute. This is not a new debate...it's about clinging to old ideas and having a 'macho' attitude. One of the dangerous behaviors in flying.

The chute should be used in the following scenarios:

1. engine out on takeoff in conjunction with attempting to land straight out
2. engine out in all circumstances where possible landing spots are not absolutely clearly visible, and without hazard to cars or others on the ground
3. at night when landing locations cannot be seen
4. over water
5. midairs
6. over mountain or uneven terrain, or in terrain where room does not exist to make a landing.

It is optional to use it under all emergencys like an engine fire, or an engine out regardless of availability of a road or flat field.

No macho attitude here. If I need to use it you can rest assured I will pull the handle. I agree that I would consider the chute with all the situations you posted, except #1. Either you pull the chute, or you land straight out. You can't do both in conjunction with the other.

I would also add that in the case of a fire, using the BRS might be counterproductive. With a fire you want to get on the ground ASAP, the chute might just give you more time in the air gently floating down and burning to death. It would be better to dive to near Vne to get low (slipping to put out the fire if you want to get fancy) and then either land or pull chute if you must. But pulling at altitude while on fire is not going to make for a good day for you.

[snaproll]

Last post on this thread for me... My main point is practice emergency landings, descents, turns, stall characteristics including high speed stalls, get to know what your aircraft and pilot skills are capable of, and make your own decision whether or not to use the chute. As most aircraft don't have chutes, pilot skills are the lifesaver - hone them, practice them, and learn. As for when to use a chute, opinions differ and at this point, "Frankly Scarlet, I don't Give a Damn". I have already survived my share of engine failures without ever scratching an airplane.

[FastEddieB]

The topic of BRS comes up periodically, so I'll try to keep my comments brief.

When I bought my Cirrus in 2003, the chute had no part in the decision at all.

But joining and following COPA, some things gradually became clear...

Most new Cirrus pilots, like me, saw the chute as a last resort. Most pilots came from other aircraft types and the chute simply seemed like a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card to be used if all else failed.

And then our very safe planes started to develop a below-average safety record. Part of this was that many, many pilots were dying after not pulling the chute, in situations where the chute almost certainly would have saved them.

Yet the inverse was apparently not the case - there were zero pilots dying because of the chute. No one says its not possible, but to date the stats are saying the chute is a very, very safe option.

What was happening was that pilots who were considering the chute as a last resort were simply never considering it at all under the stress of a real emergency. I myself managed to die after losing a wing in a Cirrus and failing to deploy the chute in time - fortunately in a simulator*, but I suspect in real life I would likely have similarly "forgotten" the chute until it was too late.

So training gradually shifted to considering CAPS - Cirrus's acronym for its BRS - first. Not to necessarily deploy it immediately at the first sign of trouble, but to at least think about it. Too many pilots seemed to be dying after not doing so.

It seems as though this change in thinking has resulted in a lot more CAPS saves, a lot fewer dead pilots, and overall safety stats for the Cirrus fleet improving to at least average, or maybe slightly better than average.

Anyway, snaproll is 100% right that each pilot needs to make their own decision. But I would say training needs to emphasize the decision making process in such a way as to be sure the chute is at least considered.

Posted here many times before, but if you have not taken the time to view this video I suggest you do so:

http://youtu.be/Pc6v-hWCSqc

It's Cirrus-specific and kind of long but holds a lot of good information nonetheless.

As a caveat, a Light Sport at 40k carries a whole lot less energy than a Cirrus at 60k. So there will be more likelihood of a successful off-airport landing in a Light Sport.


*Post describing it is here: http://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=18137#p18137

[rgstubbsjr]

The "Impossible Turn" is one of the things I practice in every different airplane I fly. I get up to a safe altitude, and do the turn in both directions. I record the date, the air temp, the wind speed, the altitude density and how much altitude I lost. When I fly that plane, I make sure I have the "safe" altitude for for that plane in the current weather conditions on the top of the page where I can see it, just in case.
A little obsessive, I admit. But I've also survived 2 real life impossible turns because the information was available when I needed it.

[BrianL99]

First, re: "The Impossible Turn"...

What may be physically possible under ideal situations and what pilots can actually pull off in an unexpected emergency seem to be two very different things.


Obligatory BRS/CAPS post to follow...

*Of course, to be fair, we are far more likely to read about and take note of the unsuccessful attempts - the successful ones do not make it into to accident statistics in the first place.

I think being Cirrus drivers and spending time on COPA, exposed us to a much more extensive discussion of parachute use. As the vast majority of parachute pulls (& non-pulls) involved Cirrus, most pilots simply haven't been as exposed to the discussion.

[sandpiper]

I practice the impossible turn. I also have my own personal minimums I brief to myself before take off setting up criteria that must be met or I won't use it. I practice to maintain proficiency although I may never use it for real. But, it's in my toolbox for consideration.

As for using the chute, the reality for me, and many long time pilots, is that it may never be a first reaction in a real emergency. Why? The law of primacy which says, in short, when things turn brown, most of us will automatically turn to first learned experiences. Since I'be only had a chute the last 400 of 5000 hours, my first reaction will most likely be to save the plane - like it or not.

If you do elect to land the plane and only use the chute as a last resort, don't wait until it's too late. Likely that the treacherous conditions on the ground that you will want to avoid, won't be apparent until 700 AGL or lower.

[BrianL99]

I practice the impossible turn. I also have my own personal minimums I brief to myself before take off setting up criteria that must be met or I won't use it. I practice to maintain proficiency although I may never use it for real. But, it's in my toolbox for consideration.

As for using the chute, the reality for me, and many long time pilots, is that it may never be a first reaction in a real emergency. Why? The law of primacy which says, in short, when things turn brown, most of us will automatically turn to first learned experiences. Since I'be only had a chute the last 400 of 5000 hours, my first reaction will most likely be to save the plane - like it or not.

If you do elect to land the plane and only use the chute as a last resort, don't wait until it's too late. Likely that the treacherous conditions on the ground that you will want to avoid, won't be apparent until 700 AGL or lower.

I think that's the huge challenge in the GA field right now. Of my 500+ hours, 400 of them were in a Cirrus with a chute and I can honestly say, it is not my first thought when there's an impending emergency. Twice in the last 10 hours, I've had my oil pressure drop to "0" and on both occasions, the parachute didn't enter my mind.

That's a mistake in my opinion.

One of the first things I should have done, was confirm the parachute was armed and make sure I had clear access to to the handle.

[3Dreaming]

My ignition key is on the pin for the chute. That way no one can fly my airplane without having the chute active. I still think that in any situation you should assess whether or not you can achieve a safe outcome before pulling the chute handle.

[BrianL99]

My ignition key is on the pin for the chute. That way no one can fly my airplane without having the chute active. I still think that in any situation you should assess whether or not you can achieve a safe outcome before pulling the chute handle.

That how I drove my Cirrus, but the Sting doesn't need an ignition key.

I could be wrong, but I think the odds of a "safe landing" in an off-airport, unpaved area, is pretty slim in most LSA's. I certainly wouldn't try it. Faced with the possibility, I'd probably pull the chute at 100'.